I don't have a bias either way because I don't support either club. It just worries me that the disciplinary system so clearly does not work consistently.
But it is consistent. If an appeal were simply to rubber-stamp all of the original decisions there would be no point in having an appeals panel.
If it weren't a Hull derby in the play offs I doubt an appeal would have been made and the ban lifted.
A totally illogical statement.
Bailey does make a head butt movement towards Long, but luckily for him doesn't come close to connecting and he was given 10 minutes to coold down.
By his coach though, not the referee.
Don't forget Bailey had 4 stitches in the cut above his eye and had to leave the field at least twice for treatment once he had returned from his rest.
This is irrelevant. Such an injury could also have resulted in the normal course of play so shouldn't be really influential in the decision being made.
He did throw a cheap shot in the last tackle at Wembley, but it was a snide annoying dig, not a haymaker so it didn't merit a trip to the disciplinary. Bailey is a cheap shot niggler, but players need to learn to play him at his own game. Shame the Hulme brothers aren't still around.
Bailey wasn't reported by the ref, cited by the other team or summoned by the tribunal so, again, this is irrelevant to the outcome.